Regrets of a Crossover Voter
I remember what it's like to wrestle with the decision
of whom to vote for, especially when neither candidate is a perfect
match with one's philosophy and taste. During the fall of 1990, the
candidates were a pleasant-looking, articulate, undoubtedly smart
Harvard man and a guy who was combative and seemed hostile, especially
to women. Every few hours I came to a different conclusion about whom I
would choose for governor on that November Tuesday.
It was a more difficult decision for me than for most
voters, because the pleasant-looking guy was a Republican and I was a
lifelong Democrat.
Much to my embarrassment now, on Election Day I cast my
precious vote for the Republican. And I had a lot of company, with the
result that the Republican Party won the governorship of Massachusetts
and has won it ever since.
It took me awhile to realize what a miscalculation I had
made.
I was working as a manager at the state, and at the
beginning I thought this new governor would at least continue to hire
top-notch people to make government more effective. After all, I
thought, Republicans pride themselves on knowing how to run a business.
My colleagues who were hired under the previous governor, a Democrat,
were hard-working and dedicated to improving services, and I assumed
that would continue.
Then I started hearing from friends in various agencies
about some of the appointments the new Republican governor and his
executive team were making. The management quality seemed to be going
downhill — not in every instance, but there were numerous tales of
people being put in charge of critical state programs who had little or
no background in the subject area, but who had worked on the Republican
campaign. Some had relevant management experience, and some had none.
My friends and I began to develop theories about the
disappointing caliber of many of the new hires.
First, there are fewer Republicans in Massachusetts, so
there are fewer Republicans than Democrats to choose from when making
appointments. Second, it is probably harder to recruit Republican talent
into state government because of lower salaries and perhaps discomfort
with the public sector.
But the most compelling reason is the Republican Party
doesn't have the same degree of interest the Democratic Party does in
the services that the state's managers are responsible for delivering on
behalf of our Commonwealth.
All governors are eager to hire people who share their
political views, and mistakes are made by all. But isn't it logical that
if you believe that the private sector is the answer to almost
everything needed by society, you won't be working overtime to ensure
the best people are making their best effort to make the public sector
work for the people?
I've learned a lot about the real-life consequences of
political choices since my mistaken vote in 1990. I've learned that in
terms of getting things done at the state and national level — or
getting things undone — Party plays a far more important role than
Personality or Charisma of the candidate.
People say that Massachusetts is a "Democratic state,"
but that's not true in terms of what we've been able to accomplish since
1990. The Republican Party has controlled our executive office for 15
years. We've had fifteen years of Republican appointments to all our
state agencies and commissions. We've had 15 years of Republican
"leadership" on all the important challenges faced by Massachusetts
(including the Big Dig).
Our Democratic House and Senate have protected us from
some of the bad ideas our Republican governors have put forward, but
since they aren't in the executive branch they can't select the people,
lead the programs, manage the contracts, or make the countless decisions
about relative priorities. A CEO matters in business. CEO leadership
matters even more in a government of checks and balances.
Many aspects of public life have deteriorated in
Massachusetts during the past 15 years: public education, public
transportation, public roads and bridges, public libraries, public
health, public justice, public parks, public fire and police protection.
Isn't it logical to see a connection between our series of Republican
governors and the lack of sustained effort and investment for the common
good?
This is the first of several columns in which I'll
attempt to explain why it's crucial to understand how party affiliation
affects what the candidate will achieve after being elected, and how the
party of our state's governor affects us all.
Catherine Bayliss is chairman of the Gloucester
Democratic City Committee and a member of the Democratic State
Committee.
|
|
Catherine Bayliss's op ed published in the
Gloucester Daily Times June 3, 2005. |
|
Gloucester
